binman

This is the post truth, Trumpian world we now live in. Some peanut says something completely ridiculous. Not once, but over and over. So often in fact that it infects webland. And eventually, rather than just being ignored as rubbish should be, it has to be refuted. And refuting, or indeed even acknowledging it, lends it some perverse credibilty. There is no more obscene example that QAnon. And no more bizarre example of the Kafaeaque world we now live in when a sitting US president given the opportunity to denounce such a completely insane and dangerous conspiracy 'theory' says "i don't know much about them, but i've heard they like me'.

or 'i was watching a replay of your last game and one of the commentators said they love the ball in (insert Saad's or Salem's names here) hands. It made me laugh because you then turned it straight over and also they always say that about me too! Do they actually watch any of our games?'

That's exactly what i thought. Edmund seems to be implying he really got on the turps. Which i guess he could have the previous day and into, but he wasn't drunk obviously when he decided to leave the hub. Maybe something happened the previous day or night and he felt he needed to run away? Sounds as if he is in a bad head space. I'm sure the club will get around him, as they should.

If we took Perryman i would want him to be on a purely performance based salary. So when he was having a shocker at the G i could yell out: DON'T PAY THE PERRYMAN!!!

Blimey people like a pile on. How about we get the full facts, but based on what we have seen he has made a blue, but in isolation (pardon the lun) surely not one so grave we wouldn't offer him a contract next season. No worse than the blue made by spargo and kozzie, and i don't recall anyone saying we should let either of tbe go

You can add in self congratulation

Had a solid bet on dees over 39. I hope they don't showboat from here. Should be 3-4:more goals up as it is. Smash them redlegs

Some good points deanox. I would have to do a deeper dive but I have heard from different people bonus points have been helpful in rugby and even more so in netball. Your suggested rule changes def would help, assuming they could be paid. Players might simply get better at masking blocks for instance. You might need to give boundary umpires the ability to call them (or similar). As a rule, I'm agin rule changes. They usually never work as intended and always have unintended consequences. But if they are looking at rule changes two i reckon worth considering to increase scoring are making kicks 20 or 25 metres for a mark to be paid and no mark paid for kicks backwards inside the degensive 50 metre arcs. Both would make 'defence with ball in hand' tactics that are the key driver of low scores much more difficult to implement.

Agree. I'm surprised he's not in the side given opposition goals come overwhelmingly from smalls and mediums. Bringing jetts back in a pretty clear sign there are not too many other options. And I like his energy and attack on the ball carrier. But he is pretty limited and is another dee with sketchy foot skills.

sounds awesome. Is the jalapeno juice vinegar and if so do you just buy the pickled jalapeno in jars (i go through about a jar a month) and use its vinegar?

The capping rotations, even nor having any, have many supporters. But it won't work. One players are just getting fitter and fitter. And teams will look to draft players with huge tanks at the expense of footy skills. And two the coaches will just find other ways to rest their players. And some of those strategies will reduce not increase scoring, for example slowing the game right down, chipping it around your back half, create stoppage after stoppage et eyc

I am of the firm opinion that changing rules to create higher scoring games will never work. Mainly because coaches will always find a way to make the game more defensive because defence wins. Always has, always will. To be honest I'm not sure if I reckon we should try and create higher scoring game as the game looks after itself. But if we do want to orchestrate higher scores in my view the only effective way to do so is incentivise it with premiership points, eg 1 bonus point for 100 points. Coaches will still default to defence but have other tactical options to maximise the chance to make finals. Use the coaches rather trying to limit their impact though stupid rules that simply never work. Leaving aside the counter arguments (conditions, grounds etc etc) tonight's game will provide the perfect example of the difference to tactics an incentive to score creates. The giants have to make up 3% on the dogs to have a chance of making the finals tonight so really have to win by four plus goals. How will this impact on the tactics cameron employs tonight? He may not decide to be more aggressive and hope their standard settings get the job done. Or he might be more aggressive from the get go (eg get his defenders to press reallt high like both the dees and the giant di last week - resulting in high scoring). Or perhaps if ahead at 3 quarter time tell his players to throw caution to the wind and take on the corridor. And if the giants do win tonight Goodwin will face the same tactical conundrum. Lets say we know we need a 6 goal win. How best to engineer that? From a punting perspective tonights game lends itself to a good bet on the over tmp bet (the tmp line 117). As will the game tommorow if the giants win tonight.

Not sure i agree with that cdp. It is easy to fall into the trap of over rating certain players from other teams at least it is for me. I see the occasional game and snapshots of saad for example. And I see every game salem plays and are more attuned to any errors and poor bits of play. All that said I'd have them on par. And is suspect if salem went to market he would have a similar trade and salary value as saad.

This is the sequel. Like godfather two a rare example of the sequel being better.

A normal smirh intervention should have been an option. I'm confident

I think kozzie covers the need for a very good small forward but agree that we could do with a really good mid sized forward (though not instead of a big) Melksam and Hannan are not cutting the mustard and the best teams all have dangerous mid sized goals kicking options. thoih i guess you could argue Fritter is playing thta role for us. The jury is well and truly out for me on baker. Before this last game i was also of the view that he was not going to make it, but he gave me some cause of optimism with his best game for the club (good timing too). Fingers crossed. In any case he is contracted for next year i think.

Our priorities in order, in my opinion: Elite kicks Elite kicks Elite kicks Key forward (assuming tmac doesn't overcome his physical limitations- which by the by if he doesn't no other club will want him) Outside runner (a bit here depends on baker's ceiling) Above average small defender (a bit here depends on lockhart's ceiling) - 90% of opposition goals are scored by smalls and medium forwards and mids Saad ticks four of those boxes. Though of course if he played for us we would learn that, like may and Lewis , despite being an elite kick he would still turn it over plenty of times. But unlike say lever he would also hit his share of high risk kicks from the back half that create critical scoring chains.

That's quite funny. Coq au vin was all the rage in 70s in the suburban Melbourne of my childhood. The ultimate in hawt cuisine. Seems like that's where you might be stuck - 12 teams all in Vic, man on man, kick the bloody ball and the only zones the new fangled travel cards used to to get the train and buses to far flung, exoctic places like Windy Hill, Waverly and Morrabin. Maybe your next name change could be Three Cheese Fondue or Chicken Chow Mein

Two things annoyed me about how they called that incident. Three actually. The first is Cameron ling was talking. I simply cannot stand him. Clueless ans seems to be incredibly dismissive of the dees. The second was that not one of those clowns disagreed with Langdon's deliberate earlier in the game, which was more marginal in so far as he kicked it under pressure 40 odd metres, forward. And ling said yep, obvious 50. But argued the greene wasn't! Third. Richo is wrong. I think. My understanding was the rule was to be interpreted as it was incumbent on the player to keep it in play, in order to keep the game moving and reduce stoppages. The only out is if it is miscued and/or a teamate is really close (not in 'the vicinity' you peanut ling). So the rule was, contrary to richos stupid comment, brought in for that exact sceario - ie a players whose skills they dribble over pretending to accidently handball it out of bounds

A really interesting dynamic is that the only realistic chance of making finals is if dogs lose. If they beat the saints both will end up on 36 points. But the giants would need to win by 9 goals odd goals to make up the percentage gap with them. And would then still need us to lose. So to be a chance they still need us and the dogs to lose. But crucially for us they need make 3.3% on the dogs as well. So they have to win by four odd gials to have a shot. Good for us as they play Friday night and us sat arvo and have to attack the saints and go for it to be a chance. No putting the cue in the rack if they are a couple up wirh 5 to go. A good game to bet over the total match point line.

That reads like a Timothy Leary haiku

Totally agree. The last one was infuriating given where the match was at. They didn't even have a replay of it. And to make things worse, soon after they were showing goody talking to fritsch on the bench in the little break for no reason. The other thing that did my head in is all rhe talking and conversation between darcy when the ball is in motion. Call the bloody game!

Total thug. Unacceptable in this day and age. Pathetic he has not copped more criticism, though unsurprising given footy media is dominated by ex footballers who are almost meat heads - meat heads who instinctively say no case to answer for every hit. But there is some justice. In game decided by 5 points Mumford gifted us a goal when the ball was clear of our 50 and IIRC another he gave away on the wing ended with a goal being kicked (i think)

Fair point